HomeMy WebLinkAbout01 23 79 PC Minutes2Z I
January 23, 1979
The Albemarle County Planning Commission held a regular meeting, Tuesday, January 23,
1979, 7:30 p.m., Third Floor, County Office Building, Charlottesville, Virginia. Those
members present were Col. William Washington, Chairman; Dr. James Moore; Mr. Layton McCann;
Mr. James Huffman; Mrs. Joan Graves; Mr. Jim Skove; Mrs. Norma Diehl, Vice -Chairman; and
Mr. Charles Vest. Mr. Kurt Gloeckner was absent. Other Officials present were Miss Mason
Caperton, Planner; Mr. Robert Tucker, Director of Planning; Mr. Ronald Keeler, Assistant
Director of Planning; Mr. Fred Payne, Deputy County Attorney; and Mr. Tim Lindstrom, Ex-
Officio.
Col. Washington established that a quorum was present and called the meeting to order
at 7:30 p.m.
The minutes of December 11, 1978, December 21, 1978, and January 2, 1979 were approved
as corrected. The minutes of January 10, 1979 were approved as written and the minutes of
December 19, 1978 were deferred until January 30, 1979.
HAROLD B. JOHNSON FINAL PLAT.- located off Route 676 on the Mechum's River, southwest
of Decca; proposed division of 35+ acres into 4 parcels, three 10+ acre parcels and one 5+
acre parcel.
Miss Caperton noted that the applicant requested deferral, since his attorney had been
out of town and was not able to attend the meeting. The applicant requested deferral until
the February 27, 1979 Planning Commission meeting.
Mr. Huffman moved for deferral. Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried
unanimously, with no further discussion.
SUNNY HILL MOTEL FINAL PLAT - located on Rt. 29 North, north of Charlottesville;
subdivision plat showing 3 parcels (zoned B-1).
Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Bain, the applicant's representa-
tive, was present.
Mrs. Graves asked if the motel will be required to connect to public water and sewer.
Miss Caperton stated that it was her understanding that the applicant has other plans
for this parcel, but this parcel will be required to connect to one public utility.
Mr. Payne stated that all lots must connect to both public water and sewer because the
lot sizes are under 40,000 square feet.
Mrs. Graves suggested that a fifth condition be added stating: "Parcel B shall have
access with the joint entrance at Bill Edwards Oldsmobile."
Col. Washington asked Mr. Coburn, Highway Department, if he had any comments.
Mr. Coburn stated that he believes the plat shows the Highway Department's concerns.
He noted that their main concern was that the easement not be shown across the frontage of
parcels A-1 and A-2.
Mrs. Graves moved for approval with the following conditions:
1. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
2. Delete the shown proposed 20 foot easement serving parcels A-1 and A-2;
3. A 20 foot easement, however, should be reserved across parcel A-1, to serve
parcel A-2; the specific language to be approved by the County Attorney;
4. Note that Tax Map 61, Parcels 120F and 120Q and proposed parcels A-1 and A-2 will
enter onto the 20 foot reserved right-of-way from 29 North;
5. Parcel B shall have access with the joint entrance at Bill Edwards Oldsmobile.
Mr. McCann seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
PROFESSIONAL OFFICE BUILDING SITE PLAN - located off Old Ivy Road, west of Charlottes-
vill, behind the Ivy Inn; proposed 3 story office building.
Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Prillaman, the applicant's
representative, was present.
Mr. Prillaman stated that he was concerned by what is meant by full frontage develop-
ment. He noted that if the Commission is just requesting the development of the frontage
on Old Ivy Road, which is 50 feet, he would have no problem with that.
Miss Caperton read the Highway Department's site review recommendations (letter of
12/6/78) in to the record: "Sight distance to the existing entrance needs to be improved.
Removal of vegetation and relocation of the fence to the east will be necessary. We
recommend that full frontage development, curb and gutter, and storm sewer is necessary
located at 26 feet from the center line of the existing road to the face of curb, to
be constructed across the frontage of this property. There appears to be constructed
a joint use entrance between the existing building which houses IMB, Blue Cross, Blue
Shield, and the Ivy Inn Property which is not utilized at this time.
Mr. Coburn stated that when he first reviewed the site he assumed it was a subdivision.
He noted that since this is not the case and only one parcel is involved it may be difficu7
to achieve full frontage development along Rt. 601 if it is not accomplished through the
site plan.
Mr. Prillaman stated that he would like to know exactly where the Highway Department
is recommending full frontage development.
Col. Washington asked who is the owner of the road frontage.
Mr. Prillaman stated that Dr. Ross is the owner.
Col. Washington stated that he does not believe the Planning Commission can require
what the Highway Department would recommend.
Mr. Coburn stated that there will be a problem with sight distance, if only 50 feet of
frontage is involved. He also stated that this site plan is a change in use and the
existing entrance does not confrom to existing entrance standards.
Mr. Payne stated that since both parcels are presently owned by the same man and they
are tied together by cooperative parking and an.easement, that the Commission can require
full frontage development.
Mr. Prillaman stated that he believes the Highway Department intends to upgrade
Old Ivy Road some time in the future and are trying to have the private individuals
accomplish as much of this upgrading as possible. He stated that he wants to know
231
exactly how much frontage will be involved in these improvements.
Col. Washington asked if it would be beneficial for the applicant and the Highway
Department to having a meeting and work this problem out.
Mrs. Graves moved for approval with the following conditions:
1. Albemarle County Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of entrance and frontage
improvements as recommended in the Highway Department's letter of December 6, 1978;
3. Staff approval of the landscape plan;
4. County Engineer approval of drainage plans and pavement specifications;
5. Grading permit;
6. Fire Official approval of fire prevention facilities;
7. Compliance with condition of VA-78-77;
8. Note that the Planning Commission is not approving a sign or its location at this time.
9. County Attorney's office approval of cooperative parking agreements.
Mr. Vest asked what.the distance of the frontage on the adjoining parcel is.
Mr. Prillaman stated that he is not sure of the distance, since it was not intended
to be included in this site plan.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
EARL BEACH FINAL PLATS
1. located on Route 618, south of Woodridge; proposed to be used as three
residential lots, 2+ acres each.
2. (Monticello Home Builders) located on Route 618, south of Woodridge; proposed
to be used as five residential lots, 2+ acres each.
Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Ms. Janett Bennett and Mr. Hilto"
Patterson, the applicant's representatives, were present (final plat #1). Mr. Claude
Spradlin, the applicant', and Mr. Buddy Bolton, his representative, were present (final
plat #2) .
Col. Washington asked if the applicant was aware of the requirement for shared
entrances.
Miss Caperton stated that lots 3 and 4(shown on #2 plat) have separate entrances,
because of a problem with sight distance. She noted that lots 1 and 2 can be approved
for a shared entrance.
Dr. Moore asked if this is beginning to strip the highway.
Miss Caperton stated that if the next item is approved all of the frontage of the
s� property (Earl Beach property) will be developed.
Mr. Lindstrom asked if lots of this dimension will be allowed under the proposed
Zoning Ordinance.
ZI3
Mr. Payne stated that the proposed Zoning Ordinance will require a minimum of
200 feet of road frontage, this will cause lots of this same acreage to be wider and
not as deep.
SwAd
Mrs. Graves stated that she believed in the past Staff had not approved of elongated
lots.
Mr. Payne stated that the Zoning Ordinance does not prevent elongated lots, but does
prevention peculiar elongations to acquire road frontage, acreage, etc.
Mrs. Graves stated that the total acreage is not on the plat.
Miss Caperton stated that the total acreage is usually shown on the preliminary plat.
Mr. Bolton stated that Monticello Home Builders are trying to serve the FmHA program.
He noted that the plat has been designed to meet the requirements of the Subdivision
Ordinance. He noted that terrain in this area is slightly rolling and they already have
a memo from the Health Department noting that there are suitable sites on this property
for septic systems.
Col. Washington asked if the road will be able to carry the additional traffic.
Mr. Coburn stated that Route 618 is still considered a tolerable road. He noted
that the Highway Department is recommending that the frontage be developed to allowed
for the shoulder break point at 15 feet and the ditch at 18 feet.
Mrs. Graves asked if the frontage development can be obtained or should the Commission
make this a condition of approval.
Mr. Coburn stated that the Highway Department can not require these improvements,
on their own.
Mrs. Graves asked if this is expensive.
Mr. Bolton noted that he did not understand widening the pavement, because this
could be hazardous due to the change in width of sections of a road.
Mr. McCann stated that he could not support a motion that would require road
improvements for low-income housing.
Mr. Vest noted that he could not agree with any motion that would raise the cost
of low-income housing.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she is opposed to stripping the highway and she also noted
that if this subdivision was other than a Farmers Home Subdivision the Commission would
send this plat back, to be redrawn.
Mr. Huffman noted that the Comprehensive Plan calls for low-income housing and every-
one is aware that FmHA will not approve loans for lots that do not front on a state road.
Mrs. Graves suggested that both items be deferred in order that the applicants could
present estimates on the cost of the road improvements to the Commission and how this
would affect the cost of the housing. She also noted that the.staff report on plat #1.
be amended to include the total acreage of the subdivision.
Mrs. Graves moved for deferral for one week.
Z33
Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion.
Mr. McCann stated that he could not support this motion for deferral, because of
the road issue.
Mr. Skove noted that he would like to see the estimates on the difference in price
of the homes with the road improvements.
Mrs. Graves motion carried by a vote of 5-3. Mr. McCann, Mr. Vest and Mr. Huffman
dissented. (Both items were deferred.)
NORTH FORK FARMS FINAL PLAT - located west of Route 29 North, off State Route 743,
near Greene County (in North Fork Farms); proposed division of previously approved 18+
acre parcel into two lots, 6+ and ll+ acres each.
Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Ms. Holowinsky, the applicant's
representative, was present and had no comments.
Mr. Skove asked the distance of the private road to the state road.
Mr. Tucker stated that it is at least 1,000 feet, maybe longer.
There was no further discussion on this item.
Mr. McCann moved for approval with the following conditions:
1. Written Health Department approval;
2. Change in the existing maintenance agreement for the private road to be approved by
the County Attorney;
3. Waiver of scale granted.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
ADVANCE MILLS VILLAGE PRELIMINARY PLAT - located west of Route 29 North off Route
743 approximately 1 mile north of Advance Mills; proposed for 35 residential lots with
an average size of 6 acres.
Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Ms. Holowinsky, the applicant's
representative, was present.
Ms. Holowinsky asked if condition #5 speaks to improvements of just the frontage
for the 35 lots.
Miss Caperton stated that it is.
Mr. Payne asked if the two lots that aren't numbered are recorded.
Ms.
Holowinsky stated that
they are
not recorded, because they are the residue.
Mr.
Payne stated that they
should be
included in the subdivision.,
Mrs. Graves asked if the plat is defective because there aren't any adjacent owners
listed.
z3tf
Mr. Payne stated that adjacent owners are not required on the preliminary plat,
by the Subdivision Ordinance.
Col. Washington asked what is included in the frontage improvements.
Mr. Coburn read from the Highway Department's letter of January 3, 1979 (Site
Review comments) as follows: "Turn lane shown for the entrance location is proper
length, full width should be 12 feet wide. Sufficient right-of-way should be dedicated
along the turn lane in order to properly maintain the ditch. We recommend.improvements
along the frontage of the property placing the shoulder break point 15 feet from the
existing centerline, and the ditch 18 feet from the existing centerline.
Mr. Payne stated that this item is before the Commission as a 37 lot subdivision
and whether they require the additional frontage development is up to the Commission
to decide.
Col. Washington stated that he believes the Commission should take Mr. Payne's
advice and consider this as a 37 lot subdivision.
Mr. Skove asked how many feet of private roads are in the subdivision.
Ms. Holowinsky stated that there are approximately a mile of private roads.
Mr. Skove asked if the buyer is aware that they are required to maintain the road.
Mr. Payne stated that this is recorded when the plat goes to record.
Mrs. Diehl asked if any of the roads that would be impacted by this subdivision
are considered nontolerable. NWO
Mr. Coburn stated that Rt. 743 currently has 184 vtpd and approximately 245 to 250
additional vtpd will be added. He noted that 400 vtpd is the point at which a road
usually becomes nontolerable.
Mrs. Graves moved for approval with the following conditions:
1. Approval of private road plans by County Engineer;
2. Written Health Department approval;
3. Written statement from Developer regarding required improvements;
4. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of commerical entrance,
turn lane and taper and additional improvements to property frontage, including
frontage of the residue lots;
5. Maintenance agreement to be approved by the County Attorney;
6. Grading permit;
7. Change the name of Ballard Lane.
Dr. Moore asked if there is any possibility for an entrance on Rt— 641.
Miss Caperton stated that at this time it is not possible.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion.
Mr. McCann stated that he could not support a motion to include frontage improvements
on the residue.
Col. Washington asked if there is any concept of phase development.
Ms. Holowinsky stated that she didn't have any idea, possibly three lots a year.
23s
Col. Washington asked if central or individual wells are proposed.
Ms. Holowinsky stated that individual wells are proposed.
Mrs. Graves motion carried with a 6-2 vote. Mr. McCann and Mr. Huffman dissented.
There was no further discussion.
L. B. HARLOW RESIDENTIAL DUPLEXES SITE PLAN - located on State Route 702, off old
Route 29 South, west of Charlottesville; proposal for four residential duplexes in
existing structures.
Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mrs. Harlow, the applicant, was
present.
Col. Washington asked what the situation is with the well and three connections.
Mr. Tucker stated that 3 or more untis being served by one well is considered a
central well.
Miss Caperton stated that Mr. Williams, Assistant County Engineer, had informed her
that as long as there are only two connections to the buildings, the applicant does not
need a permit for a central well.
Mr. Tucker stated that he believes Mr. Williams is incorrect. He stated that he
believes the ordinance speaks- to units and not connections.
Mr. Payne stated the word used is connection and he noted that he does not believe
this is relevant, since there is enough acreage to have individual wells.
Col. Washington commented to Mr. Tucker that he feels the Commission should look
at central wells at one of the work sessions. He noted that the Ordinance, as he
understands it, would not allow an apartment building with,25-units,:but only one
connection to have an individual well.
Mr. Huffman asked what type of frontage development is required for the site plan.
Miss Caperton noted that the Highway Department is recommending the shoulder at 15
feet and the ditch at 18 feet.
Mrs. Harlow stated that the well has already been approved. She also stated that
the entrance was approved by the Highway Department. She noted that Highway Department
told her to change the ditch, which has been done. Mrs. Harlow noted that originally this
site was planned for two dwelling units, but later she had decided to remodel the garages
as apartments.
Col. Washington noted that an increased use is involved.
Dr. Moore asked why there are so many parking spaces.
Miss Caperton stated that two parking spaces are required for each bedroom.
Mr. McCann asked if the road improvements had been made.
Mr. Coburn stated that additional pipe, stablization with stone, and additional
grading to the western corner of the property will be required.
Mrs. Graves moved for approval with the following conditions:
1. Staff approval of landscape plan; and a note on the plan: "Landscaping shall be
mw
maintained in a healthy condition, to be replaced if it should die;"
2. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval of a commerical entrance
and frontage improvements;
3. Written Health Department approval;
4. Show deeded easement on adjacent property to the satisfaction of the County Attorney;
5. These conditions shall be complied with six months from the date of approval;
6. Approval of a central well by all applicable agencies, if required.
Mrs. Diehl seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
GERCKE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY SITE PLAN - located on the east side of Berkmar Drive
near Rio Road; proposed contractor s office and storage building.
Miss Caperton presented the applicant's request. Mr. Dixon, the applicant's
representative, was present.
Mr. Dixon stated that they had tried to meet all the recommendations from site
review. He noted that they plan to take care to save large trees, plus additional land-
scaping will be done, trucks will be parked in the back of the building and screened,
storage is covered, and there will be screening from adjacent properties.
Mrs. Graves asked if the gas pumps are just for the contractor's use.
Mr. Dixon stated that there will be no public usage.
Mrs. Graves moved for approval.
Col. Washington stated that,,ppndition #4 should state "staff approval." (Refers
to Commission approval of landscape plan.)
Mr. Payne stated that it is his understanding that Planning Commission approval of
this site plan constitutes approval of the landscape plan, as shown.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with the following
conditions:
1. Fire Official approval of gas pumps and fire prevention facilities;
2. Service Authority approval of water and sewer plans;
3. Virginia Department of Highways and Transportation approval;
4. Compliance with conditions of SP-78-35; approval of this site plan shall constitute
approval of landscape plan;
5. County Engineer approval of paved areas and drainage plans;
6. Grading permit;
7. Note that the Planning Commission is not approving the sign or its location at this
time.
There was no further discussion.
Z3-t-
INLAND SERVICE CORPORATION WAREHOUSE ADDITION SITE PLAN AMENDMENT (loading area) -
located on the north side of Route 250 West; proposed loading area for the warehouse
addition at the Rothwell Distributing Company.
Miss Caperton noted that the applicant is requesting deferral until March 20, 1979.
Mr. Huffman moved for deferral.
Mr. Vest seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
RESOLUTION OF INTENT to amend the Albemarle County Zoning Ordinance to include
Article 6.9 - Historic Zoning.
Mr. Keeler read a letter into the record from Mrs. Ellen Craddock. (attached)
Pnr. Dorrier, Chairman Historic Preservation Committee, stated that some changes
have been made in the Historic Preservation Ordinance. He noted that the mandatory
maintenance section had been deleted and that a member of the Board of Realtors would
be appointed to the Architectual Review Board. Mr. Dorrier also stated that the Committee
felt that if some type of incentives were provided there wouldn't be a problem with
the ordinance being mandatory as opposed to voluntary. He noted that the main objective
of this ordinance is to protect and preserve Albemarle County's historic landmarks.
Mr. Dorrier noted that there are currently 21 ordinances in effective at this time in
the state of Virginia.. The County of Hanover and the city of Culpeper or considering
adopting a historic ordinance. Mr. Dorrier stated that the Comprehensive Plan calls
for local regulations and controls to provide for preservation of our historic landmarks.
Mr. Dorrier noted that tax incentives are a very important part of the Historic Ordinance
and Section 21-24 of the Tax Reform Act of 1976 states that once a district has designated
and the ordinance approved by the National Register (Department of Interior) rehabilitation
work, commerical property and rental property, in the district, is eligible for increased
depreciation benefits. At the local level Section 58-59.1 states that local areas can
designed separate tax rates for rehabilitation of building 30 years or older. Commerical
property is eligible for these tax rates at 45 years or older.
Mr. Dorrier read several letters into the record from citizens in support of -the
proposed Historic Ordinance. They were from Mr. Floyd Johnson, Mr. Bear, Thomas Jefferson
Memorial Foundation, and the Trustees of the Sunny Fields Land Trust.
Mr. J. J. Murray, owner of Bentivar, stated that generally he supports the Historic
Ordinance, but the ordinance as proposed has the community reaping the benefits and the
landowner bearing the expense. He noted that tax incentives should be part of the ordinance
to relief the burden of expense from the shoulders of the individual landowners. Mr.
Murray stated that when he bought Bentivar it was in a very dilapidated stated. He noted
that he has restored the home and over the past eight years the tax assement has risen
800%. He also noted that measures should be taken to protect the environment of the home,
because at this time all the restrictions are placed on the homeowner and not the immediate
environment.
Mr. Joe .Hearn,President Board of Realtors, stated that he can not understand how this
ordinance will protect the historic homes in the County. He noted that he could not see
someone buying a home and trying to restore it, if they had to go through an Architectual
Review Board, because of the higher cost of improvements. Mr. Hearn also noted that
individual parcels are being involved and not districts. Mr..Hearn stated that designation
should be voluntary and the properties to be designated should be listed at the time the
ordinance is adopted.
. 9
Mr. Bill Stevens commented that the County probably did more for perserving
historical properties when they adopted the Comprehensive Plan. He noted that 50
percent of the mandatory provisions are still in the ordinance (section 6.9.5).
Mr. Stevens also commented that the Ordinance is eroding the property rights of
the citizens even further than thay have already been eroded in the Charlottesville -
Albemarle area.
Mr. Barry Chamberlin, a member of the Historic Preservation Committee, stated
the Historic ordinanc is very democratic. Every district must be approved by the
Board of Supervisors, a public hearing will be held and the owners wishes will be con-
sidered. Mr. Chamberlin also stated that he did not believe the Board of Supervisors
would force anything on a landowner that they did not want. Mr. Chamberlin noted that
Court Square is a good example of a historic district and he b6lives everyone approves
of the Square. Mr. Chamberlin stated that once this ordinance is on the books, it can
always be amended.
Mr. John Clark stated that the Historic ordinance confisicates the property rights
of the citizens, in particular those citizens who own homes that have been listed
for designation. He stated that he doesn't feel that anyone is opposed to historical
designation, but the question is how can it be equitibly done. Mr. Clark stated that
government should bear the burden (purchase homes and operate them in a historical
sense). He commented that he is opposed to the mandatory provisions, because he doesn't
think anyone has the right to tell someone else what they can do with their property.
Mr. Clark noted that his home is on the list of homes that may be designated and he
noted that this will be a extreme financial burden to himself. He noted that citizens
who own these homes don't wish to tear them down or deface them in any way, because they
love their homes.
Mr. Don Swofford noted that he is for historical preservation of properties. Hey
stated that he was on of the co-authors of the Historical Ordinance in the city of
Dallas. He noted that it took 5 years to get a historical ordinance approved in Dallas.
Two of these years were spent planning and drafting the ordinance before it went to the
Planning Commission. Mr. Swofford stated that there hasn't been any planning for this
ordinance. There is just a list of names and dates, some of which are incorrect. Mr.
Swofford pointed out several changes and suggestions for the ordinance. He noted that
a staff for the Architectual Review Board would just increases the beaucracy and the
nominations for this board should be made by organizations other than the Board of
Supervisors. He noted that there should be specific criteria based on important historic
data (date, why of historical importance, etc.). He suggested that the Savannah Formula
be used to determine whether a home should be designed. Mr. Swofford also stated that
100 year limitation, for designation is very limiting, because some of the finest archi-
tecture in the Charlottesville area has been in the past 20 to 30 years. Mr. Swofford
stated that in order to have tax incentives the ordinance and the designated property must
be listed on the National Register. He noted that the Committee may wish to consider
development transfer rights, which would satisfy the developers and the historic property
owners. This would allow property to be transfer to development zones. He also noted
that a full working farm should be exempt from the ordinance, because if an owner wished
to paint a barn he would be required to obtain a building permit.
Mr. Dorrier stated that Mr. Swofford is correct concerning tax incentives. A home
must be listed on the National Register, in order to, receive tax incentives.
Mr. John Vermillion, owner of Franklin, stated that his home is over 200 years old
and is on the list of historic landmarks. He noted that the ordinance in its present
form is protecting "Franklin" from its owners. Mr. Vermillion noted that he and his
wife were not aware of the public hearing being held on this matter until they read the
Daily Progress. He stated owners of homes on the historic landmarks list should have
January 22, 1979
V
Route No. 11 Free Union, a. Mr. William Washington
Chairman, Planning Commission
County of Albemarle
Charlottesville, Virginia
A;,,,,,,, Dear Sir:
While Supervisor from the Scottsville District, Per.
Lindsay Dorrier, will present tomorrow night the outlines of Historic
Districts for Albemarle County, it is with considerable concern for
write you this let
the retention of the proposed Districts in our Land Use Plan that I
ter. Due to the unwarranted attack upon the use of
these districts by the Real Estate community,
thpulic is entitle
to an explanation of the real purpose of the designation of Historic
Districts, which is to preserve and
protect
stectural integrity of the oldest andfinesttexamplesric of homesandrand
estates in this county. This designation is defined as
art
approved Comprehensive Plan, and is similar in scope to thoseousedr
in other counties. We are fortunate here to be in a
Position
pro-
tect at an early date those sites which have historic and tarchitectura
significance, while in no way impinging on the ownership of the pro- 1
perty. The Architectural Review Board set up to monitor properties
would be advisory in nature and not dictatorial.
Historic As an incentive to owners
of property to accept designated
and
established tax incentive systems, and have given tate governments locl rame both
Power to designate tax advantages where theyareapplicable. Thents
us,
far from being deterrents these designations will be assets to owners of such property. Contrary to some newspaper reportsthe
, there
**,,,has been considerable private acceptance of the concept of rvi
our unique national heritage.
beautiful cIt is a well-known fact that this
o�anty is visited by hundreds of
to enjoy what is our precious historical heritage. To year anxxious
to preserve that heritage is surely the duty at To do what we can
all. priciledge of us
It is my hope that the Chairman will see fit to read this
letter in o public session as I shall be unable to be present at the
meeting on January 23rd.
Sincerely yours,
Ellen G. Craddock
011
Im
been notified of this meeting, since their property is involved. He noted that the
Historic ordinance is infringing on the owners property rights.
r- Mr. Bedford Moore stated that he and his wife support this ordinance. He noted
that they endorse the principal of historic preservation, but feels the ordinance can
be improved. He suggested two changes: 1) open space easements; and 2) limit restrictive-
ness of the ordinance (example 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres).
Mr. Roy Patterson, Citizens of Albemarle, noted that his organization support the
objectives being sought by the ordinance. He also stated that he feels many of the
remarks made were worth being considered by the committee.
Mr. Clifton McClure, stated that many citizens are concerned abouth "historic
district adjacent to landmarks". He noted that people want to know what property is
involved other than the historic landmark itself. Mr. McClure stated that in the late
sixty's there was a boom in the market for homes needing restoring for three reasons,
they were: 1) historic; 2) beautiful; 3) prospect of a reasonably app
reciation.commented that this ordinance would destory the marketability of the homes, because the
buyer would no longer have the prospect of an appreciation of the property.
Mrs. Judy Vermillion, stated that these homes are not historical landmarks, they are
peoples homes and the government has no right to tell homeowners what to do with them.
Mr. Robert Patterson stated that there are laws that suggest the season of real
estate is a unique and very basic human right, which no one has the right to infringe upon.
Henry Browne, member of the Historic Preservation Committee, stated that several
statement had been made that would be helpful to the Historic committe. He noted that
a slight change of wording in some parts of the ordinance would make this ordinance a
voluntary program. Dr. Brown noted that it is unfair for a landowner to use the ordinance
to protect his own vista and view at the penalty of his neighbors. He requested that
the Commission send the Historic ordinance back to the committee to be reviewed and to
use the word "voluntary" wherever possible.
Mr. Richard Cogan stated that it seems that most of citizens who own historic homes
restored these homes because they wished to and not because an ordinance was telling them
they must. He noted that he feels historic preservation is an excellent idea, but feels
it should be voluntary and not force people to a decision.
Mary Wheeler stated that she is in support of the Historical ordinance.
Mr. Rey Berry, Realtor, stated that he objects to the mandatory proposal and is
interested to hear Mr. Payne's comments, concerning anyway this ordinance could be
voluntary.
Mr. Payne stated that it is not possible to have a voluntary ordinance. He stated
that the County has no authority to limit the power of the Commission or the Board of
Supervisors to initiate amendments to the zoning map. Mr. Payne stated that he couldn't
see any means of creating a voluntary ordinance.
Col. Washington stated that he believed there had been enough reasonably suggestions
from'.the public to sent the Historic ordinance back to the Historic Preservation Committee
to be redrafted.
Mr. Dorrier stated that he agreed with Col. Washington.
Col. Washington asked what is the time limit the Commission has to act on an item.
Mr. Payne stated that the Commission has 90 days, from the date the item comes before
them for the first time, to action on an item.
Dr. Moore noted that he would like to see the Historic Preservation committee 140)
take the ordinance back and come back later with a revised draft.
Mrs. Graves stated that she felt the Commission should have the ordinance in some
form the public could re -act too, before sending it back to the committee.
Mr. Dorrier noted that if the Commission decided to send the ordinance back there
will be many items that will need work, in order to return to the Commission. He stated
that he would like to see the proposed zoning ordinance and the historic preservation
ordinance go to the Board of Supervisors at the same time.
Mr. McCann stated that his major concern with the Historic ordinance is whether it
should be mandatory or voluntary. He noted that when something is resolved concerning
this then he could agree to moved ahead with the ordinance. Mr. McCann also stated that
he doesn't feel that the Board of Supervisors should be relied upon to determine if
citizens property rights are being violated. He noted that he could not support a
ordinance of this nature, which is mandatory.
Mrs. Diehl stated that she had no objections to working on the ordinance at the
meeting or sending it back to the committee, but she stated the Commission should reach
a decision on what they would like to see included in the ordinance.
Mr. McCann stated that he doesn't feel the ordinance is needed, if it is not voluntary.
Mr. Payne stated that if the Commission approves the ordinance it will be mand-
atory.
Mrs. Diehl moved to schedule a work session on this item, February 6, 1979.
Dr. Moore seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
OLD BUSINESS - DISCUSSION OF REVIEW OF WAVERLY PRELIMINARY PLAT
Mr. Tucker informed the Commission that the Planning Department had received a
letter from the applicant, Gersanndy Associates, requesting that the Planning Commission
reconsider - the Waverly Plat at the earliest possible date.
Mr. McCann moved that the the rules of the Planning Commission be set aside and the
Waverly Preliminary Plat be reconsidered.
Mr. Skove seconded the motion, which carried unanimously, with no further discussion.
NEW BUSINESS
Mr. Tucker suggested that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution of Intent to
amend the Subdivision Ordinance to require Planning Commission approval of all subdiviGions
in the urban area. Mr. Tucker stated that this has always been a verbal policy
between the Staff and the Commission, but some problems have arisen, since the ordi-
nance does not require Commission approval, if they would normally be approved administra-
tively.
Mr. McCann stated that he feels the ordinance should not be amended, but the policy
changed.
There was no further discussion and the meeting adjourned at 12:30 a.m.
Ko ert W. Tucker, Jr. - Se etr
N
N
M